The following appeared as a recommendation by a committee planning a ten-year budget for the city of Calatrava.
"The birthrate in our city is declining: in fact, last year's birthrate was only one-half that of five years ago. Thus the number of students enrolled in our public schools will soon decrease dramatically, and we can safely reduce the funds budgeted for education during the next decade. At the same time, we can reduce funding for athletic playing fields and other recreational facilities. As a result, we will have sufficient money to fund city facilities and programs used primarily by adults, since we can expect the adult population of the city to increase."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The given recommendation by the committee suggests reducing the funds for education for the next decade while reasoning that the birth rate of Calatrava city is falling gradually. Moreover, the committee is planning to reduce the funding for the athletic playing fields and several different recreational activities and indulge in raising funds for other city facilities and programs that will be used by adults, assuming the population of the adults will increase. However, while the conclusion is drawn by the committee, it rests on several unfounded assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically attenuate the persuasiveness of the argument. Therefore, the following points need to be addressed.
Initially, the committee is comparing the statistics of the current year with the statistics five years ago. Five years is a long period and is enough to have a myriad number of changes. It could be possible that the people who were originally living in Calatrava have migrated in a high number to a different country or state that contributes to a lower population of the city. Moreover, it could be possible that the education in Calatrava city is not competent enough to attract the students to take admissions in schools of Calatrava and hence the students might be relocating to different education hubs for their studies. This might a contributing factor for a constant reduction of students enrolled in the public schools, due to which the committee has decided to lower the funds.
Secondly, the committee has failed to provide enough evidence to bolster their assumption of a fewer number of students enrolled in public schools. The assumption is baseless. It might be possible that the students are not opting to admit themselves to the public schools of Calatrava because of the reason that the facilities provided in the public schools are not up to the mark. Hence, most of the students are preferring private schooling over public schooling. If the committee would have thought of the aforementioned factor then it would be valid enough for the readers to believe.
As per the committee, the further plan is to reduce funds for several athletic playing fields and compensate for other recreational activities, assuming that the birthrate has decreased and there would only be an increase in the adult population. However, the committee has forgotten that there are still existing students and younger people who went to several playing fields to play several sports to stay fit. If the committee plans to reduce the funds for playing fields then, there won't be any place for the younger ones. Moreover, if the committee increases other recreational activities in the city, it would not be a fair solution for the younger people.
A careful analysis exposes the loopholes present in the recommendation. In addition, the recommendation does not seem to be strong enough to buttress the conclusion of reducing the budget for public schools and athletic playing fields because all the reasons provided by the committee are skeptical. Therefore, the committee of Calatrava city should rethink and provide a logical and foolproof solution.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 508 350
No. of Characters: 2606 1500
No. of Different Words: 204 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.748 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.13 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.831 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 208 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 167 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 120 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 79 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.19 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.996 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.531 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.107 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 275, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'several'.
Suggestion: several
...ing for the athletic playing fields and several different recreational activities and indulge in ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 411, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...o the mark. Hence, most of the students are preferring private schooling over public schooling...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 484, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had thought'?
Suggestion: had thought
...over public schooling. If the committee would have thought of the aforementioned factor then it wo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, while, as for, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2660.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 507.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24654832347 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90736874979 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.424063116371 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 819.9 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.9667118736 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.666666667 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1428571429 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.09523809524 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.23993987135 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0729971322912 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0563086899259 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131895239177 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0545932079342 0.0628817314937 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.